/zoo/ - Zoophilia

Trolling almost indistinguishable from zealots who actually believe this. 7/10

Anyone seriously considering this needs to get out more, and get real problems.

wait this is actually a thing?

EFA is like LGBT movement = Full of whining pussies.

I dream for a full sexual liberty with my animal, but I don't want EFA to defend my rights.

Just because there's nothing wrong with something, doesn't mean it should be considered normal

I don't even tell people that I like dick, much less animals, and I'm going to keep it that way no matter how much society will be twisted in the name of "progress" in the future

This thread is full of American wussies.

>>5339

How can you tell ?

Where do you think I'm from ?

>>5339

I'm actually an Australian wuss

>>5321

Though, this isn't to say that it should be illegal

I don't really know if it should or not, since it involves another being that isn't an adult human, so it doesn't really qualify as being a personal freedom, but at the same time I don't think it really warrants jail time unless it involves actual, clear-cut, "she has bruises and is missing a tooth" abuse, which there are already laws for anyway

All I know is that it shouldn't be considered normal

Normal people don't know how to treat an animal right, hell even a lot of zoophiliacs force themselves on animals, sometimes even later convince themselves that the animal liked it

Imagine if that was commonplace

Fuck no. This is the most idiotic thing I've ever seen, it reeks of autism and special snowflake. You just want attention and act like a victim.

>>5370

In a perfect legal system, it wouldn't be illegal.

I don't care to get into why. It doesn't matter in the real world. There are far worse issues at this point in history people need to be addressing than whether we should be boinking quadrupeds or not, and meanwhile the implications of it being illegal on us come down to 95% psychological meanderings by sheltered people who you'd wonder how they even survive adulthood. It's easier to keep to yourself than doing drugs and less enforced, and there's virtually zero money in it left to draw attention. Every single aspect of modern life involves maintaining facades but when it comes to dog knots it's too much to ask?

There's almost nothing an animal lover can do in society with their animal that a zoophile can't already do. The only difference between them is what happens in the bedroom, and the odd awkward conversation about why you're not married yet - but come on, every 40 year old fat weeaboo has to answer that one. It's not like gay rights; they were fighting for the ability to hold hands in public and be tolerated in restaurants together. You can literally kiss your dog in public and no one bats an eye. The only people it seriously complicates life for are those in long-term marital relationships but half the time it's because they were started on the wrong foot and they had bigger issues, lack of forethought.

At most it's a political distraction like gay marriage that serves mostly to skew society's priorities.

The irony is that part of the reason it's so unenforced - and life is actually comparatively decent for us - is that most police agencies and voters believe it's a rare problem. You can quote that. Unlike CP, top agencies get very little funds to target bestiality. But in OP you see these ideologically obsessed individuals who are out to convince the world there are millions and millions of us and in fact try to prove them wrong. Which means a few people flipping a huge coin with very sharp edges on behalf of everyone... for extremely little tangible measurable gain. And then they wonder why they're not well received.

>>5375

damn anon, that was the best argument I've read regarding this topic.

I was always pretty torn between whether acceptance would be good for us or not, but I have to say this post has certainly convinced me to lean towards keeping yourself to yourself.

>>5370

"It is ordinarily said that criminal law

is designed to protect property and to

protect persons, and if society's only

interest in controlling sex behavior

were to protect persons, then the

criminal codes concerned with assault

and battery should provide adequate

protection. The fact that there is a

body of sex laws which is apart from

the laws protecting persons is evidence

of their distinct function, namely that

of protecting custom."

— Alfred Kinsey

there are far bigger "zoo" as wel as "nonzoo" issues out there which have a higher priority.

the irony of this is that E.F.A wants to improve the way society views zoos to the point where zoos are socially accepted.

yet all they do is say "we want the right to have sex with animals". so of course the public sees this and thinks that this

is all there is to being zoo. this is ironically counterproductive. they should campaign for animals rights, boycot the

fur industry, boycot the brutal conditions within the animal agricultural business, etc otherwise the general public will

think that being a sexually depreaved pervert is all there is to being zoo. yes, the zoo movement will come and eventually

succeed. but only once the public understands that being zoo is more than just sex. so groups like E.F.A are not really

helping until they advocate/fight for more than just decriminalizing SWA. Besides the movie "Coming Soon" isn't casting

the proper light on zoos eg the dude who was wearing dead foxes around his neck, or the dude slaughtering pigs for a living

and then falling on love with one because he thought this was the reincarnation of his dead wife? a clear sign of transference

although it was transference that bridged the species barrier. which is interesting but not helping with public perception.

the reason i bring up this movie for all noozoos/nonzoos is that E.F.A is closely related.

>>5311

wow how stunning

>>5339

>using your email address on a zoophile chan

gg no re

>>5422

wtf is gg no re?

and whos to say that this email isnt a throwaway?

and even if not, this was a reply to a post ab out a public movement. perhaps he (liek OP) is outed so it wont matter.

>>5426

good game no rematch

>>5375

I used to kind-of side with acceptance, but a lot of people take this kind of thing way to seriously. I would surely love to see anti-zoo laws abolished (if proven the animal is not pimped out or raped), but this guy has it right:

>>5311

I personally despise the LGBT movement and I don't want to ever see a Z tacked on the end of it. If zoos are accepted, it should be a completely different thing. Gays are against zoo rights so hopefully it stays out of the popular spotlight. I don't want to see political freak teachers in public schools push zoophilia on 10 year old kids like they do with LGBT. This is an adult issue and only adults should ever be involved. Otherwise I would start hating myself for being zoo all over again, just like I did when it was explicitly ostracized.

I have noticed that people seem to joke about it more on TV/movies/games. It's becoming more mainstream. If anything we should work AGAINST making it mainstream or equated to LGBT.

>>5449

Nope, this is not JUST an adult issue, my zoo feelings started way before I even hit puberty, my struggles would not have be that painful if I had known what it was all about and that loving animals not just like pets ain't that uncommon.

Stop thinking kids do not play with themselves, they learn sexuality with their fellows and now from porn out of their smartphones. If adults skew sex ed to their offspring 18's birthday, they're gonna have a bad time until then.

We request kids to reach 160 IQ level by any mean, be proficient in math, languages and computers, but when questions about sex arises, all they get is "you'll understand when you'll grew older". No shit Sherlock...

Your kid is able to compute a ballistic trajectory at 12 yo, but wouldn't understand how penis and vagina works? I'm completely for the gender theory and teach kids of 6 to demystify sexuality before things turn bad. After all it's their body, like personal hygiene. If parents cannot/wantnot to educate their kids about personal hygiene or sexuality, who would?

>>5464

> If parents cannot/wantnot to educate their kids about personal hygiene or sexuality, who would?

Oh i'm sure there're lot of people in the internets who would gladly do it

>>5472

eeww. also win.

if you meet someone who does not want to educate their children simply tell them what this guy said. i'm sure parents will imediately changes their minds about sex ed and prefer it be given at home or in a classroom rather than a van.

>>5464

the precise and masterful use of ignortant ideology you seem to stick to but not paying attention to major falsies in the ideas expressed.

To anyone who feels the need to hide or be purposely ignorant towards sexuality of their own and of other animals has some oddly formed insecurities and is more reflective on your argumentive capability. As does homosexuality occur in nature, Interspecies sex does aswell and at times plays a vital role for some species to exist. The laws currently in place over a lot of the world seem to make examples out of the worst imaginable circumstances and many of it just that, circumstantial possibility but not realistic to most cases and many of these laws are passed because of these cherry picked stories depicting zoophiles in the worst way possible while dodging the topic all together. Your already standing bias on the topic speaks for it's self and i couldn't think of to many more important social topics to discuss then this one besides race, religion, war and economics because it's somehting that is seriously overlooked and set's a double standard on many things. Do some research or read some articles and try and lean off the ignorant dissonant based responces everyone loves to throw around without real thought or effort.

>>5501

Was directed more or less at >>5311

>>5501

>set's a double standard on many things

It doesn't. Double standards were already there. They're everywhere. In fact they're ingrained in the process society chooses to use to 'progress', which is chaotic and flawed. This issue is merely one symptom of greater policies, and tackling this one has almost no chance of affecting those greater policies. You have to do it some other way.

>>5504

Thanks for the general addition and summary onto what i had said but the double standard i was making example the treatment of animals to do with farming and economic production and topic of sexuality in it's many forms. People are ignorant yes, this being the root problem you are refering to and i don't see what you are trying to affirm with that very general statement and I fail to see the point or addition trying to be made onto what i had said but it helps to try and have substance to any opinion or you may have a long thread like this.

>>5506

>People are ignorant yes, this being the root problem you are refering to

Not quite what I meant. The root problem is a combination of social policies that go to the very core political beliefs underlying the system and voters (e.g. libertarianism vs puritanism) and the piecemeal approach to tackling social issues which is modular in other words one group at a time as convenient rather than truly egalitarian for all.

It takes a complete shift in mentality and political education to address. You can't achieve this very much or at all by tackling the morality of bestiality head-on and it makes a poorly reaching example likely to simply fail or worse drag itself down. In other words, the value of addressing bestiality directly is low and should not be prioritized, possibly avoided. In the face of such ingrained dysfunction.

>making a special snowflake identity out of what gives you orgasms

Fuck off.

>>5542

beasts generally care more about the orgasm but less about public perception, the animals or a relationship/romance

zoos generally care more about the animals, public perception and the relationship/romance but less about the actual orgasm/sex

as it was stated multiple times by multiple people, there are higher priorities. creating drama is not helping the cause,

and neither is constantly confusing bestiality/zoophilia/etc.

complaining bothers everyone so I agree less yapping please. discussions are fine I guess though.

this zoo drama is making matters even worse.

if you no like topic of thread or all you want is pron to fap to then don't participate.

instead of saging the thread just to tell someone to

>Fuck off.

>>5548

Dat rose tint.

There is nothing wrong with some drama, and "the cause" is just good comedy.

>>5542

I've never had an orgasm with an animal I've had sex with. What's important to me is that HE has an orgasm; my physical enjoyment is not very important.

>>5562

i'll give you the benefit of the doubt...

but i find that very hard to believe...

even if (what ever you two might be doing) isn't causing you to climax,

then why arn't you masturbating during the "act"?

>>5593

One hand is usually either guiding him into me or holding his knot, or if we get knotted, holding his leg so he doesn't run off and drag me along for the ride. The other hand holds me up so my face doesn't get ground into the carpet.

It's not very easy for me to reach orgasm when on my hands and knees, anyway.

Usually I just go masturbate after he's done and we separate.

>>5548

>the cause

Fuck off, snowflake.

is OP still around?

im curious as to what OPs thoughts are towards to reactions/posts of the (this) community!

also;

>>5294

>our sexual orientation, bestiality,

bestiality is a fetish and not a sexual orientation.

>>5627

failed trolling attempt

>>5703

A fetish is, by definition, a sexual attraction to something not sexual. Animals are automatically sexual by virtue of having genitals.

So being attracted to shoes is a fetish. Being attracted to cars is a fetish. Being attracted to breasts is, technically, a very mainstream fetish. Being attracted to a dog is not a fetish.

>>5703

OP was a troll or extremely deluded, and if you're curious why would you sage?

I don't need any rights wtf.. I'm a sick motherfucker and I know it, I don't want people to accept me

>>5722

exactly. this guy gets it!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetish

>a need or desire for an object, body part, or activity for sexual excitement

inanimate "object", "body part" of an animated object, activities such as bondage, rape fantasies

>A fetish is, by definition, a sexual attraction to something

the emphasis being on "sexual attraction" and not "sexual orientation"

>>5725

I dont think OP was a troll, nor particularly deluded. if you read through some online news reports,

this group (E.F.A / zeta-ev) really does exist, and they do demonstrate for

zoophilia, bestiality, and sex with animals every year in berlin since the year that germany banned

it (sodomy) in 2013(?). IIRC this is on february 1. seems to make it into the news.

i saged because i was curious, yet didnt want to bump up the thread. if OP is still around, i'm sure

he'd be lurking his own thread...

>>5734

a corpse is an inanimate object. therefore necrophilia is a fetish

>>5732

>I don't need any rights wtf.. I'm a sick motherfucker and I know it, I don't want people to accept me

fine. if you are willing to give up your rights or freedom, then that is your choice to make.

but you are not the only one on this planet. there are others who aren't "sick motherfuckers", and would

like to NOT be treated like those who are sick like you (which you have just openly admitted).

seeking acceptance from family and peers is one of the most natural needs we can have.

if you don't mind not being accepted, then whatever, just as long as you don't ruin it for those who do.

out of curiosity... what makes you so "sick"? are you a zoopedo/zoosadist?

at least you appear to not delude yourself about your uhm "issues", but i still can't help but wonder,

what can be so bad that you don't long for acceptance?

would you care to elaborate?

>>5736

>if you don't mind not being accepted, then whatever, just as long as you don't ruin it for those who do.

You have no right to write this without looking at the whole picture. This is a closed system and that's a two-way street. These people craving validation are risking everything for the rest of us who just want to live our lives (which we can just fine), which is by far the most inconsiderate and grave of the two.

Also you need to work on your trolldar.

And to avoid a shitfest, that's not carte blanche to go out and ruin zoo reputation or what have you, only acknowledgement these goals conflict and when they do it should be clear which mandates priority.

>>5735

Corpses have genitalia, therefore they are sexual.

>>5740

what? im not sure what you are saying

>>5743

>Corpses have genitalia, therefore they are sexual.

false. fleshlights have "genitalia" therefor they are sexual, therefore (since they are inanimate)

are a sexual "fetish" not a sexual "orientation".

since anything "necro" involves "inanimate" bodies, necro is a sexual fetish as well

>>5739

hmmm, ok. i did fail to take into account that some zoos might rather live in the shadows and have society forget / sweep under the rug

that such things as zoophilia exist. but how is this relevant to a rights movement?

>These people craving validation are risking everything for the rest of us

risking this for the rest of you? its illegal already anyways. so how can making people aware that this orientation exists and

that member are a minority that seek acceptance cause any more harm in places where people are already persecuted?

>Also you need to work on your trolldar.

who trolled who? im probably not the same anon you are refering to...

this is me again (>>5703 )

os OP (this guy >>5294) still here?

if so, please drop a comment.

>>5746

If you want to make zoophilia legal, then first you'd have to bring it to society's attention

And given society's current view on the subject, bringing it to their attention as a significant thing will initially result in violent backlash

Most people would rather live out their lives in secret than deal with that backlash, which will last for decades before any progress is made

And it's not like living it in secret is all that difficult, people aren't actively looking for zoophiliacs and the animals aren't telling anyone, all you have to do is not go around displaying your "zoo pride"

While I am a /zoo/, even from a more neutral point of view, I can't see the problem with non abusive sex with animals. Defining abusive as hurtful to the animal here, not the wider definition of having no very clear consent.

There is certainly a size limit on what animals can have sex with a human without it being abuse no matter what, I long for the day that my penis is large enough to be a physical problem for a mare.

All we really have to look for if we believe its ethically acceptable to have sex with an animal is:

Do we accept that we can breed animals with each other?

Do we accept that adult humans can make their own decisions about what they want to have sex with, even if there is no reproduction possible?

If we accept both, then there should be no problem to have sex with animals as long as the same amount of consent is gotten from the animal as is gotten when they are used for breeding. Much of our breeding is already not as it would happen in nature (artificial insemination, sperm extraction, whatever). To replace a sperm recepticle or whatever is used to inseminate with a willing humans ass/pussy/mouth/dick should be no fucking problem.

The only reason this is not the case is because people are not logical about their ethics. Something feels wrong, thus it is wrong. Which isn't always the case.

>>5752

People + logic = does not compute

>>5751

>bringing it to their attention as a significant thing will initially result in violent backlash

im only glad that rosa parks, mlkj, mandela, gandhi, etc did not fear the "backlash".

otherwise society would be way more backeards than it already is anyways.

besides, the emphasis is on initially, meaning it will pass eventually.

yes i know that it is ridicules to compare the abolishment/ anti racism/etc movent to a sexual rights movement. but the point is valid

at least in terms of fear. if people fear the repercussions of attempting to change ANYTHING, then nothing would change... bad argument

>And it's not like living it in secret is all that difficult

i give you that point though. no one has to participate in any movements. its a choice. same with showing "zoo pride" (in public anyways)

>>5752

>The only reason this is not the case is because people are not logical about their ethics.

anyone who studies logic and/or ethics and/or researches a little deeper into zoophilia realizes that there is not one single argument that can be made

against it. we all know that. many opposers fear that. and the best they can come up with, once their arguments are destroyed is:

oh but eeeeew that is sooooo disgusting. (ick factor fallacy),

but GOD said in his BIBLE that he doesn't want you to do that! and we must ensure that you behave, because our all powfull GOD

can't take care of this himself and needs us little humans to stone you to death for insulting him (religious fallacy)

i dont like it, so neither should you. i dont like playing videos games, so anyone who enjoys them is a criminal. (some other bullshit fallacy)

everyone thinks its wrong (appeal to majority), and so it goes ad nauseum...

>Something feels wrong, thus it is wrong. Which isn't always the case.

"feelings", especially feelings of moral/ethics are (for the masses) entirely subjective and inspired 100% by culture/society.

logic on the otherhand is entirely objective. sadly culture is largely influenced by religion, and the abrahamic religions where the first religions ever

(as far as we know) to adopt anti sodomy laws. note that they are "laws".

and any abrahamic denomination (islam, judaism, christianity, etc) has henceforth included this view on sodomy.

sodomy coming from soddom and gamorrha and means basically anything thats fun. anal sex, non missionary (doggy style) sex, donkey sex, etc

which caused a HUGE domino effect to influence things like contraception, abortion, stem cells, scientific progress, etc

so as long as people don't think for themselves and let archaic books tell them that burning a goat alive pleases and arrouses a god (therfore is good),

yet screwing one or sucking his dick will piss him (some celestial dictator) the fuck off (therfore is bad)???

logic people... it can't seriouslybe THAT hard? oh wait... >>5755

>People + logic = does not compute

>>5752

>Something feels wrong, thus it is wrong. Which isn't always the case.

true. this also goes in th other direction.

somethin that feels "wrong" isnt always "wrong", just like something that feels "right"

isn't always "right" either

>>5759

I hope you do understand that stating the obvious consequence doesn't make you look smart? It's quite the opposite actually.

*other anon*

inb4 grammar nazism: english is not my native.

>>5759

Sure, and we also have to make concessions due to practicallity. We can't have farms if we don't accept the wrong we do by not letting animals run free. We can't eat meat if we do not accept the practical implication that we must kill animals, no matter how humane (of course, that is until lab grown meat is made, but I am not sure peta like people will be happy to see how much the lifestock gets reduced once lab grown meat is here). There aren't many practical things to consider about sex with an animal. Possible dissease transfer is one, but in many ways, it will be safer than sex with humans in that regard. Anything else is really about weighting the choices of the human to the freedom of the animal. In this case, the choice of the individual human can be whatever he wishes. So all that remains is the freedom of the animal to consider compared to that. For practical reasons, we already accept that we breed animals without being 100% sure they consented. That is a pretty good datapoint in the "nothing too morally wrong about sex with animals" field. Of course we have to make further considerations, just because we kill animals for food doesn't mean we should landmine a cow field just to see the bits fly. So other considerations like bringing undue pain can be thought about, anybody that has seen bigger animals mate will understand that normal human sex will never be as painful to them as normal sexual behavior (a mare probably barely notices humans sexual attempts. Dogs will often do some biting down on the neck of the other dog as well as their claws scratching the female, if you let yourself get fucked by males, there is even less you can do to hurt them under general circumstances). So from that standpoint, many animals should be totally clear for sex. One of the last major things to consider would be if any consent what so ever can be gotten. And the answer is most likely yes. Female animals get in heat, male animals generally don't care too much when or what they fuck (kinda like humans), and anybody who has ever worked with animals will be able to note the animals mood from their behavior, and they will know that making an animal do something they really don't want to do is very hard. You may be able to teach a dog to accept water, even if he used to be afraid of it, the same doesn't really hold true for fire.

Building up the logic around the ethicalness of animal fucking based on practicallity also points us to there being no real problem with it. It doesn't really have a practical use itself, but under many circumstances it probably isn't wrong either. And those circumstances under which it is wong can be handled with other rules than a total ban on sex with animals.

>>5785

It kind of might be. Certainly not as important as many other human rights issues of the past and present, but that doesn't mean it can't be an minor human rights issue. It has a lot in common with gay rights and the like. Giving people the right to fuck whatever they wish, even if some people find it repulsive, as long as it is not abusive towards others, in this case, animals.

Things like access to the internet can be human rights issues, for example if most jobs or government help can only be gotten through online forms. Is it the most important human right? Probably not, but just as gay rights as well as zoo rights probably aren't the most important human rights straight away, they can still be considered a minor human rights issue which should be adressed at some point.

>>5757

>yes i know that it is ridicules to compare the abolishment/ anti racism/etc movent to a sexual rights movement. but the point is valid

Except it's not

If you just don't say anything, nothing will happen to you

This wasn't the case with blacks or women or Indians under British rule

For them, change was needed and was worth the initial backlash

For us, the problems are minor enough that they aren't worth decades of trouble

>>5787

>For us, the problems are minor enough that they aren't worth decades of trouble

Indeed

>>5768

>practical things to consider about sex with an animal.

>It doesn't really have a practical use itself, but under many circumstances it probably isn't wrong either.

careful there. many things that could be considered "practical" are completely unethical (wrong).

eg slated floors, gestation crates, battery cages, etc. and vice versa.

structuring an argument based on practicallity isn't only objectifying (beast), but also fallacious.

i'll bite though since there are two sides to the coin of praticallity.

a) you can't apply practicallity to an emotional bond alone. yes, living with a partner has benefits (besides sex i mean),

but please lets not reduce/rate zoo based upon it practical use. love itself isnt very "practical".

b) it is infact practical. no unwanted pregnancies, no sti's (usually), etc

>>5785

>We are not an oppressed minority

yes we are (although not as oppressed as other minorities, i give you that)

>We fuck animals.

you might do that. but that does not mean that others are actually deeply in love.

and those who are emotionally attached to an issue, are hit way harder by oppression

than those who are simply thinking about the sex act itself.

>Fucking animals is not a human rights issue.

like >>5786 said, yes it actually is a human rights issue (although a minor one)

if you read the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) you will notice that

oppressing/criminalizing/persecuting zoo related actions are violating not just one but

several Articles of the UDHR. most notable are Articles 1 & 2. (and indirectly a few other Articles as well)

>>5787

wrong, the point is very valid.

>If you just don't say anything, nothing will happen to you

false. you can be found out about and someone might be outing you without your consent.

ontop of that you should not forget to take into account that many politicians, animals right activists, etc are

using this as a "slippery slope" argument (amongst others) inorder to gain power for "their (anti) movement".

which will cause a negative impact regardless of how many stand up for their rights (bob marley ftw).

>For us, the problems are minor enough that they aren't worth decades of trouble

yeah i see your point. but who is saying that his will take "decades"? a simple change of laws is enough for starters.

this way no zoo has to worry about getting fired if your boss somehow finds out that you take

"screwing the pooch" or "shagging the sheep" literally.

>>5788

Oy vey. any rights issues are worth the trouble it takes to achieve change.

>>5793

>any rights issues are worth the trouble it takes to achieve change

ah the pure youthful idealism

>>5793

>you can be found out about and someone might be outing you without your consent

Except, since most people aren't even aware that zoophilia is anything more than a joke, most people aren't looking for that sort of thing

Even if you seemed overly affectionate with your pets, most would just think you're a bit off your rocker, rather than a sexual deviant

This would change the moment a zoo rights movement gains traction

People would think that a somewhat significant amount of zoos exist and would consider it to be somewhat of a significant problem, whether this is even true or not

As of now, we're under the radar, and practicing zoophilia is a relatively safe activity, provided you aren't a moron

Best to keep it that way

>>5795

fair enough

>>5794

how so?

please do explain

>>5795

true. most places that don't have laws against it are just that way because it's never come up. like in germany it was legal and then the zoo-rights marches happened and the government was like "oh shit. that's legal here? whoops our bad, better fix that." and passed a law against it.

>>5797

not him, but to me you seem to be grasping for something to fight for. you have the heart of a revolutionary but you don't have much to fight for, and have not yet learned the importance of picking your battles.

in order to fight for "zoo rights" (i'm a zoo and all i wanna do is love my dog in my own home. i already have that right, but i don't need anyone else to acknowledge that) you would have to give up so much and you would stand to gain so very little. you are caught up in principals, but need to learn pragmatism. these come with age. in the mean time, keep exploring what is important to you, but don't be so hasty to throw away what you have in order to gain what you think you want.

Right now, the only thing actively getting in my way is this American obsession with neutering all male dogs. It's not even about population control anymore; now the vets are telling everyone that it's better for the dog's health and sociability so you still have to chop their balls off.

I'm not sure I can even be socially accepted walking around with an intact dog. Everyone is going to assume I'm irresponsible, especially friends and family who will know I'm not breeding him. My excuses will only go so far.

>>5798

that is complete bullshit. the rights marches happened AFTER the law was changed.

before the law change german zoos did have (enough) rights, so there was no need

to go out on the street.

also note that the law change itself was illegal, as a so called animal rights

group with ~300? helpers clickbombed the shit out of a poll (illegal as you can't vote more than once)

and thus managed to get over 90000 (heh) clicks or something. making the chancellor believe that

there are way more people who want an antisodomy law. when in fact almost no one cared. FAIL.

the new law is totally ridicules to say the least, as it technically forbids having sexual relations

with vertebrates (for your own sexual enjoyment). meaning that a) humans are vertebrates so human-human

sex is now illegal in germany, and b) sex with insects / formicophilia are still perfectly fine.

so is masturbating an animal. as long as you make monetary profit and dont enjoy doing it you are not breaking the law.

but as soon as you enjoy stimulating an animal you break the law. even if said stimulation does not involve "sex" at all. FAIL!

>>5803

same goes for doing an octopussy

or anything thats not a vertebrate.

>>5803

same goes for doing an octopussy

or anything thats not a vertebrate.

>>5801

just tell anyone that you implanted neuticles.

problem solved!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuticles

oh yeah, this crap is for real. fml

>>5806

I would think that this'd just make it more obvious that he's a dogfucker

>>5810

no. because the dog will still have its genitalia mutilated (although no one can tell from the exterior view).

so the dog will most likely loose all libido and sex drive.

which is sort of the opposite of what a 'dog fucker' would want.

what i was saying is that if someone complains about the negligence of not having neutered your pet he could simply say: oh no, he totally is neutered, the are fake testicals you are looking at to prevent psychological trauma and post-op depression.

>>5795

>Except, since most people aren't even aware that zoophilia is anything more than a joke

take the zoo movement one way or the other, its only a matter of time until people are aware of "zoo"

>most would just think you're a bit off your rocker, rather than a sexual deviant

thats part of the issue. people still regard this as a deviancey, rather than accepting the reality of things.

>a somewhat significant amount of zoos exist

thats another issues. there are more zoos on this planet than we realize.

same with homosexuals. there was a time where the "public" thought that there were only a handful of gays.

the reason was that they remained silent since they feared the consequences of speaking up

but after it became more and more accepteable to be gay, the statistics of how many are homosexual drastically increased.

>we're under the radar

>Best to keep it that way

are you sure?

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

since I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

because I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not protest;

since I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

because I wasn't a Jew.

and when they finally came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

--Martin Niemöller

lets kepp repeating the same mistakes.

speak up, before its too late

>>5813

And I'm saying that no one would believe you

>>5814

lol 10/1- I've never laughed harder at a post on this board. Goddamn niemöller is somewhere beyond cliche by now. Do you write for zeta-verein?

>>5814

lol 10/10 I've never laughed harder at a post on this board. Goddamn niemöller is somewhere beyond cliche by now. Do you write for zeta-verein?

>>5815

yeah, you are probably right about that.

it was ment more as a joke anyways.

>>5816

well i am certainly glad to have caused some personal entertainment for you :)

thanks for the 10/10 rating though.

cliche or not, the argument is valid.

>Do you write for zeta-verein?

nope. those guys don't even know i exist :P

>>5817

oh and what exactly caused you to lol?

the quote of niemöller, or the rest of the post?

>>5814

If we keep quiet, there are two possible outcomes

1. We stay under the radar until giving miscellaneous oppressed minorities rights stops being cool and everyone can continue to diddle their pets uninterrupted

2. The media runs out of oppressed minorities to start pushing an acceptance movement for, turns their cameras towards us, in 2-5 years all the liberals will have our backs because they just gobble that shit up, and in 10 years zoophilia will be legal, resulting in little change aside from teenagers calling themselves zoophiliacs even though they don't actually have sex with animals, just so they can be special snowflakes

>>5816

>>5817

some german zoo (http://blog.zeta-verein.de/2015/05/kings_eve/), who uses an english keyboard... well... how about that!

>>5824

Reductio ad Hitlerum.

FAIL!

>>5825

>FAIL!

Go back to Funnyjunk

>>5801

There's a lot of new-ish research being published that shows speutering (especially early) has bad effects on the dog's health. More vets are learning about it and discouraging early speuter. I won't have any more speutered animals and health reasons are why, and I can legitimately give that as the reason. Not everyone will agree with it, but reasonable "dog people" and animal health people pretty much all know about it by now. Try doing some research about it, learn all you can, and give that info to prying family or friends. Even if you weren't zoo, keeping your dog intact is what's best for their health and that's what should come first anyway!

>>5827

ditto

>>5736

This is because I do think this is more than "not normal". I think it's an illnes. Thankfully zoopedo and zoosadist or necro is not my cup of tea. I'm enjoying it as long as I'm not lying to myself. Having sex with animals, is a bad thing. I'm a bad person. I have freedom, and I have my rights, because i'm not that stupid to tell anyone about this. I'm keeping it to myself.

please keep in mind this is my opinion. This is not true or false, this is an opinion.

(sry about mistakes english is my third language)

Most people who know me know I'm zoo.

People don't care as much you think. They don't even really care as much as you claim to. They are only willing to say angry words when safely behind the internet. When you're in the same room with them, the worst they'll ever do is stop talking to you. This isn't to say you face no risk. The problem here is that no matter how accepting a normie seems to be, no matter what a good friend they are, they're very unlikely to defend you when the shit hits the fan. Zealots who actually DO hate us use apathy and the current state of the law as devastating weapons.

I don't really like the way LGBT politics or culture have developed. Faggots are just unbearable. However, I'm not so deeply into sports-team politics that I want to throw the whole idea out the window. Like it or not, they're right about the issue that created them, and their movement was necessary. If we ever want to stop being at risk of random bigots with wild asshairs ruining our lives just for being ourselves, we have to take the same approach at some point. And given the increasingly positive reactions I get when I talk to normies about it, I'd say now is as good a time as any to start.

>>5843

That was supposed to read "They don't even care as much as they claim to."

>They are only willing to say angry words when safely behind the internet. When you're in the same room with them, the worst they'll ever do is stop talking to you

This is a broad assumption I've read in posts of people who were later tried in court. It highly, highly depends on the area you live in and how lucky you are.

I prefer not giving random people ammunition against me and leaving it up to luck. You can control this.

>>5842

>please keep in mind this is my opinion. This is not true or false, this is an opinion.

i respect your opinion. yet there are certain things that you can't have an opinion about.

eg 2 + 2 = 4, no matter what you think or what your opinions are. gravity exists, does does fusion etc.

>This is because I do think this is more than "not normal".

define "normal". if we get philosophical about this then everything is "normal" as the most nomal thing is diversity itself.

>I think it's an illnes.

again, think about zoo whatever you want. but one thing zoo certainly isn't, and thats an illness. same goes for homosexuality which isn't and illness either.

it has been independantly verified that zoophilia isn't a bad thing. no matter what anyone (even zoos) think.

and no, im not special snowflaking here. zoo isn't directly in the DSM either. it can cause certain antisocial/depression disorders to arise though.

evolution in many cases required zoosexuality (though not necessarily zoophilia) to take place in order for

"speciation events" to take place. most notably the homo sapiens sapienszoo is needed by nature. just like homosexuality, which also has evolutionary benefits.

>Having sex with animals, is a bad thing. I'm a bad person

again, your opinion (which in this case does not adequately reflect the facts).

im still curious exactly why you think so.

>english

your english is fine. congrats on triliguallity.

could you perhaps rephrase your argument into something more tangible?

something along the lines of:

zoo is bad / an illness because X/Y/Z

>>5844

>They don't even care as much as they claim to

because anyone with half a brain who sits down and actually looks at the facts will quickly realize

that zoophilia is not what they where raised to believe it to be.

only issue is that many people don't like thinking because its too hard. and many need to let out their anger

or frustration (with the wold) somehow. so zoo or furry makes an excelent scape goat.

>>5849

>again, think about zoo whatever you want. but one thing zoo certainly isn't, and thats an illness. same goes for homosexuality which isn't and illness either.

>it has been independantly verified that zoophilia isn't a bad thing. no matter what anyone (even zoos) think.

>and no, im not special snowflaking here. zoo isn't directly in the DSM either. it can cause certain antisocial/depression disorders to arise though.

Psychology is the biggest pseudoscience quackery field in existence today. If any of your supposed proofs of how zoophilia in the human brain works come from it, they are actually all placeholders for future discoveries in biology, and to be taken with large grains of salt.

>>5852

>Psychology is the biggest pseudoscience quackery field in existence today.

not it isn't. granted there are a bunch of "psychological theories" which are definitely false.

but to dismiss the entire field as "pseudoscience" is just plain wrong.

>If any of your supposed proofs of how zoophilia in the human brain works come from it,

>they are actually all placeholders for future discoveries in biology, and to be taken with large grains of salt.

biology = psychology. not sure what you are trying to say...

please explain...

>>5856

>not it isn't

Yes, it is. It is a field so early in its infancy that it barely passes as science and needs minimum 30 years before a large pool of its supposed scientific claims are verifiable. None of which will come from native psychologists.

>>5857

>It is a field so early in its infancy that it barely passes as science and needs minimum 30 years

>30 years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_psychology

>None of which will come from native psychologists.

oh man, lol wut?

> supposed scientific claims are verifiable

many psychological "scietific" claims are already verifyable.

it becomes increasingly obvious that you have been diagnosed with something that you can't accept.

out of curiosity, what have you been diagnosed with?

>>5859

Precisely. It's still early in its infancy despite all that. Wow, why, wikipedia has so much text on it?! Because it advances at a snail's pace and resists evolving. It's the downs child of the sciences.

There's no need for all this insecurity. In time we'll find out how the brain truly works. Junk science is not the answer, that's barely a step up over religion.

>zoopedo

I'm curious. Why does anyone have a problem with this besides "don't fuck a bitch that is too small for you"?

>>5860

A+ work. Literally was thinking the exact same thing. Also, plenty of psychologists are retards, but plenty aren't. There's a plethora of worthwhile psychological data to sift through.

>>5871

I don't believe people really view fucking young animals as being any different than fucking adult animals

>>5850

It's more accurate to say that most people weren't raised to have any particular beliefs about it. It's not a topic most people consider it necessary to talk to their kids about, because it's so far from "normal" experience that they don't even imagine it could be a thing.

Oftentimes, when I talk to normies, they barely even have a reaction at all. I have to explain to them what it even is, and there is no place in their moral framework to put it, so they pass no initial judgement. They only begin to form those judgements later, when they're thinking about it by themselves.

Usually, this is where disgust kicks in, and whether they conclude that I'm a terrible person or not hinges on whether they're intelligent enough to tell the difference between that reaction and an actual opinion. Most aren't, but by that time, the discussion was in the past, and so if it bothers them enough, they have to bring it up later, which they don't want to do. Usually they just find a way to stop being my friend.

I don't need friends that are idiots who can't form a real opinion without social shame and disgust clouding their judgement, so I don't consider it a huge loss, even though it is lonely.

>>5878

Yeah, "zoopedo" is more like "somebody who is both a zoo and a pedo," i.e., me.

>>5878

>I don't believe people really view fucking young animals as being any different than fucking adult animals

sure they do. its already bad enough that people screw dogs. but puppies? those cute and adorable balls of fur?

thats basic psychology. the death of a puppy stirrs more emotions than the death of an old cancer ridden dog.

same goes for "raping" something thats cute/small/defensless/etc

>>5871

>zoopedo

>I'm curious. Why does anyone have a problem with this besides "don't fuck a bitch that is too small for you"?

because its a "gray area".

a sexually immature creature (human animal and non-human animal alike) can't adequately consent to a sexual activity.

so doing something with a minor (animal in this case) would be considered rape.

on the other hand (and most certainly not advocating this) penetrating a foal (immature horse) will certainly not cause physical trauma. penetrating a puppy most certainly will.

the problem here is that it isn't clear whether or not screwing a foal for example can cause psychological trauma.

because if so, its violating the foal (bad). if not, then technically there isn't anything wrong with that.

so as long as this isn't clear, its best to stay away from sexually immature animals.

additionally, if it gets out that some zoos screw young animals, and that the zoo community does not take a hard stance against this,

then its way to easy for others to try and equate this to pedophilia (which causes mostly everyone to cringe), or use the slippery slope argument.

if we decriminalize bestiality, then people will begin to rape puppies. and those who rape puppies will sooner or later force themselves upona human.

while the obove sentence is completely fallacious, it will cause traction amongst too many people, and will set back zoomanity.

>>5877

>Also, plenty of psychologists are retards, but plenty aren't.

Strange. Nobody wrote that psychologists were retarded. They largely aren't. They're educated in ill and pressured astray by their own field, though afterwards the methodology and belief self-reinforces nicely.

Even stranger to see zoophiles stick up for it when comparatively it's still an under-"researched" topic. I understand some people are desperate for papers to cite but it's really grasping at straws, too early.

In the context of the thread it's a minor reason to want to "just wait" and not do anything rash. Let the sciences evolve a bit. There's no rush.

>>5891

>zoomanity

Okay I'll never know if that was in jest or not and I don't care, this needs to stop here. You should feel horrible for writing that.

>>5892

>In the context of the thread it's a minor reason to want to "just wait" and not do anything rash. Let the sciences evolve a bit. There's no rush.

It's also worth noting this compounds with other reasons for waiting.

In particular while religious fundamentalism in the United States is on a slow decline, it's still the dominant group in absolute numbers. The (waiting for) dropping in their numbers and science becoming less shaky interrelate highly, while shaky science advanced too early for a given topic backfires more with this dominant group for that topic than with any other group, as everyone should know.

>>5894

if enough of zoomanity zoopports the zoovement, then zooventually all

zoos will live in zootopia and zpeak zooish

or other zoospeak such as zoozian. gezoondheit

lol

>>5880

>Yeah, "zoopedo" is more like "somebody who is both a zoo and a pedo,"

not quite. its a bit more complicated than that.

zoophilia/zooerosy/zoosexuality (animals) is defined as a sexual orientation.

pedophilia/pederosy (children) is defined as a sexual perversion disorder (not a sexual orientation).

zoopedo (zoophillic pedophilia) pedo with a touch of zoo. so underage human with animal. this usually refers to adults consuming this type of pornography.

a "zoopedo" isn't really a underage human who is doing an adult animal (as many firstzoos do), but rather an adult who is interested in watching an animal do a minor.

it is therefore is an age related voyeuristic pedophillic sub fetish and classifies as a sexual perversion disorder.

the human minor (provided it was by choice) is NOT harmed by the encounter. as many zoos have their first sexual encounters while underage and arn't traumatized by it.

pedozoo (pedophillic zoophilia) zoo with a touch of pedo. so an adult human who is into calfs/foals/puppies/kittens/etc. this is an age related fetish as well.

whether or not animals are "scarred" from early sexual encounters is unclear.

>somebody who is both a zoo and a pedo

that "somebody" could be into animals (zoo) and young humans (pedo).

but NOT be into young animals (pedozoo) or young humans with animals (zoopedo).

>i.e., me.

what kind are you?

pedophile

zoophile

pedozoophile

zoopedophile

all of the above?

and what is the underlying aspect of your attraction? eg the "young" aspect, the "rapey" aspect, the "innocence" aspect, etc

>>5904

i have a strong feeling that you made up this classification yourself. If not, give us the sources.

>>5904

Except that's bullshit. There's no such thing as a "sexual perversion disorder."

Saying that pedophilia isn't an orientation is just as retarded as claiming zoophilia isn't one. Whether you believe it is possible for children to consent under any circumstances whatsoever is immaterial to that fact.

As for differentiating between people who are into immature people or immature animals, that's pedantry. Most of the sort of people who like both children and animals are better simply classified as "indiscriminate." They'll have sex with pretty much whatever seems to enjoy it. Adult humans, having invented many rules seemingly designed to help them avoid having sex, do not seem to. So, maybe they're less interested in those, in the general case. That's about it.

This thread is shit

>>5907

A broken toilet, half-buried in the sand. Life's a pisser, then you die.

>>5909

>Cause life's a bitch and then you die

life's a bitch so screw it (her)

>>5905

>i have a strong feeling that you made up this classification yourself. If not, give us the sources.

correct. someone is always the first to coin any term.

we know that there are various sub categories. in this case

adult+puppy vs child+dog

both of which are drastically different. so when we look at the root (in this case pedophilia/zoophilia)

and then add a modifier prefix (zoo/pedo) we see that these terms are actually quite self descriptive.

do you have a better classification scheme? if so please share.

it gets even more complicated once you try to define the fetish that deals with dead puppies

which i find absolutely repulsive. but since it (sadly) exists, it needs a name/label as well

>>5891

This is wrong. If you rape a puppy and injure it, then that falls under existing animal abuse laws. It would be illegal whether merely having sex with it were legal or not.

As for consent, that is EXACTLY what I'm getting on about. It's bullshit. It fails the social more test because most people morally feel that NO animal can consent, whether sexually mature or not. It also fails the biology test as sexually immature animals of all types are still interested in sex and still gain some level of physical and emotional enjoyment from it. The difference is that human children are said to have the potential to be psychologically harmed by sex while animals cannot. Animals do not live in a society where others will look down upon them for being "molested". Animals cannot feel guilt over when they lost their virginity. Animals will not have to recite to the police where the adult "touched them" and thus relive uncomfortable memories. Animals don't have an "innocence" to break. Animals already live in an environment where sex is restricted, whether in the wild or captivity, so being exposed to sex early will not cause them to become promiscuous. Animals will not grow up to be rapists.

There is literally no argument you can come up with that will stick here. Provided it does not cause physical trauma, sex cannot harm an animal whether it is sexually mature or not.

For the record, I've never penetrated a female smaller than a mature Great Dane (despite some misbegotten attempts during my early pubescence). I don't even have much interest in doing so. However, I have had sex with male puppies. Often this is just using my hand to bring him to orgasm, but in rare cases I've had a chance to allow one to mount me. One male I had sex with for several years; the first few dozen times we were tied, he was still only having dry orgasms. He was perfectly normal in adulthood.

>>5820

not him, but i laughed because of your out of control victim complex

>>5899

The best part is that it pretty much just sounds like normal German.

>>5952

All the more reason to banish it forever.

>>5907

Everything about sexual identities always is.

>>5976

looks like michael. are you OP?

>>5996

https://www.google.de/maps/place/50%C2%B056'08.9%22N+6%C2%B056'25.9%22E/@50.935795,6.940513,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

>>6002

thats the image location. was requesting the image source.

unless you ( >>5976 ) took it and are the source

https://images.google.com

-> Search by Image

>>6007

google? google? FAIL!!!

>>6008

I was going to say something informative, but then I remembered I'm replying to someone still answering posts with "fail" in all caps.

>>6009

and why don't you post your informative knowledge for the rest of us?

>>6009

And three (3) exclamation marks, no less

>>6004

I didn't take the Picture, just searched after the name of the U-Bahn Station in the background and found the place in streetview.

>>5904

What about kids (toddlers to teenagers) playing with or fucking cubs? When 8 I was already fondling female foals and fillies at my mother's stable, then lost my virginity 2y later to a beautiful young filly. Fucked her several times until she was sold when she reached 3yo. Dare to name this according to your fabricated classification?

>>6056

>according to your fabricated classification?

just to clarify, we know that various sexual orientations, fetishes and their sub-categories already exist(ed).

i just decided (for a research project i work on) to "label" them in a way i thought was most coherent and comprehensible (for my target audience (which isn't 8chan)).

in this case "adult with puppy" (pedozoo), "child with (adult) dog" (zoopedo), etc. lets not go into the whole necro thing, which further complicates things

zoopedo/pedozoo are both drastically different. meaning they need different labels. so when we look at the root (in this case pedophilia/zoophilia)

and then add a modifier prefix (zoo/pedo) we see that these terms are actually quite self-descriptive.

to further clarify, zoopedo has the human child in the focus of the fetish/attraction (meaning its a subcategory of pedophilia)

the only exception is when you are the "child" and are not coerced by an adult (pedophile) to behave this way.

where as pedozoo has a young animal it the center (making it a subcategory of zoosexuality)

in order to study and research anything, one needs a name and description before one can go about collecting data.

the last thing we need is zoophilia and zoosadism (for example) to be thought of as exactly the same thing. making studies and polls pollute the collected data.

>What about kids (toddlers to teenagers) playing with or fucking cubs?

in your case "child with puppy/filly" (zoosexuality). like i was saying before...

>zoopedo (zoophillic pedophilia)... refers to adults consuming this type of pornography (an adult who is interested in watching an animal do a minor)

so a pedophile (who gets off to children) with a zoo fetish (so children with animals).

>a "zoopedo" isn't really a underage human who is doing an adult animal (as many firstzoos do)

i had forgotten to add that this includes "child with puppy/filly" (>>6056, you). which is not distinguishable from regular "zoo"

>(Dare to) name this

its called zoo(sexuality|philia) when you lost your virginity. when you were just fondling, it is refered to as "playing doctor".

the reason being that you are/were both underage when these events took place.

making it indistinguishable from homosexuals or heterosexuals who (when both are still minors) play with one another and/or loose their virginity.

your experience was technically regular zoosexuality. whether or not you (or anyone who has done a filly while still underage),

remains attracted to a filly later in life their is a whole different thing.

if you/one later realizes they are into zoopedo will be determined later on in life.

similarly to pedophillic tendencies. a 8 year old (later to become) pedophile having intercourse with another minor is NOT classified as pedophilia.

as ling as the vent in question involved two minors.

also why wouldn't i "dare"? was that meant as a threat or as a challange? not sure.

>>6059

Jesus christ this is just painful to read.

If you want to have a proper discussion with people at least put effort in formatting your posts. You don't fucking fling out a slurry of words in real life either when you're trying to get a point across, right? I hope you don't.

This is why I almost never get into debates on the internet any more and when I do, I usually regret it. It's either strawmen non-stop or endless semantics... then everything polarized so black and white becomes indistinguishable from trolling. Massive waste.

>>6059

Pedophila doesn't change its definition just because the person who has it does. A ten-year-old who wants to have sex with other children his age is still a pedophile by definition.

You don't get to change the definition of something just because you feel like it.

>>6059

>fabricated

I understand your need to create little boxes to sort things into them for your data mining and also present an understandable paper to the general audience.

>dared

I expected you to create another box more related to what happens precisely at that age. Not just "playing doctor". As you know, underage (another fabricated frontier between childhood and adulthood) means you do not have a sexual activity, even less a sexual life. But puberty hits long before you reach 18 or 21.

I think I missed an important detail about the context of my youth. My parents divorced when I was 3. Suffice to say that I had almost no father (male) presence during my growth and especially since my mother finally found a female mate. On the other hand they were really affectionate, understanding, loving and caring, I cannot really complain.

About the stable stuff, my mother bred horses since her own youth, having been raised in a ranch. I watched her do when I was young and found this really powerful and fascinating. The young foals were somewhat panicked, trotting around during the procedure, chewing air.

My mother requested me to help and play a bit with the foals to lessen their stress while the stud and dam were fornicating. When she asked me to "play", it was actually her who requested me to "play doctor", touching them nicely and sensually here and there, teaching me things. Remember I was around 8 and already knew the almost whole stuff about sexuality between horses, but nothing between humans as this remained quite a taboo, even though my mothers were quite progressive about sex ed.

Nonetheless, it was my mother that "bred" me to a lovely young filly in a marriage-like ceremony when I reached sexual puberty after I spurted my first ejaculation when I was around 10. So there's nothing about sneaking in the barn during the dark, it was somehow supervised and even encouraged. The audience during the ceremony was restricted to a few knowing and zoo people, there was no shame, no harm, just love and pure bliss. I was then bred to several fillies and mares after that day, until I was old enough to bred them by myself without assistance. No wonders why I'm an exclusive zoo and horse breeder too nowadays.

Hence, how would you classify this?

>>6060

>Jesus christ this is just painful to read.

>at least put effort in formatting your posts

why? which part was difficult for you to read/understand?

any suggestions on how to improve the "format" of my post, for others, that like you, have issues with it?

>If you want to have a proper discussion with people

i do in fact.

>slurry of words

are you still talking about >>6060 ?

are you ESL?

>>6068

>This is why I almost never get into debates on the internet any more and when I do, I usually regret it.

i can relate to that

>It's either strawmen non-stop or endless semantics...

strawmen are terrible, yes. but sematics are incredibly important. we need classifications and definitions if we want to actually learn about said subjects.

>then everything polarized so black and white becomes indistinguishable from trolling.

why can't you/one distinguish between sematics and trolling?

>Massive waste

perhaps

>>6075

>A ten-year-old who wants to have sex with other children his age is still a pedophile by definition.

not sure if trolling. if so, i'll take the bait.

if what you are saying would be true, then that would mean that most people on this planet are pedophiles. which clearly isn't the case.

the only exception would be those who have waited with anyhing sexual until past "legal" age.

which is almost no one. plenty of people (minors/children) loose their virginity to others of the same age. that does not make them pedo!

>You don't get to change the definition of something just because you feel like it.

i didn't "change" any definitions. the definition of pedophilia, pedosexual(ity), pedoerosy, pederast, etc

does not, and as far as i know never has included two minors having sex.

and as far as semantics go:

unless you are taking pedophilia / pedosexuality literally. the love of children / sex-with-children.

in which case, yes, a ten-year-old having sex with another ten-year-old is "technically" having sex with another child, making this a

"pedosexual" activity (again, only if taken literal), but thats not what people know under the label "pedophilia/pedosexuality".

>>6082

>not sure if trolling. if so, i'll take the bait

I have an impression that you wrote that post yourself so you could change the subject.

>>6084

wrote what? what posts did you mean?

also, change the subject from what to what?

>>6076

>I understand your need to create little boxes

sort of. we need to know how to identify certain aspects before we can study them. and "present an understandable paper to the general audience"

>data mining

data mining concerns large data sets (big data), which is completely the opposite of what my/our database looks like.

there is very little information out there. well, 'little' is relative (there is a lot of info out there). but 'little' enough data

to compute with conventional algorithms without requiring "data mining" (pattern discovery) methods.

first of all, i would like to thank you for providing such a detailed account (assuming this is not made up).

shall i insert you as "anonymous" into the database or would you want a pseudonym to be used?

>I expected you to create another box more related to what happens precisely at that age.

i have dozens of "boxes", and "sub-boxes", but the one that best fits you (from your previous post anyways) was regular "zoo". and "playing doctor"

staying in the pedo(zoo) sub category there also are for example: hebezoo/infantozoo/ephebozoo... and many non pedo "boxes" aswell. eg homozoo/heterozoo/bizoo

lets not forget rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants). --Richard Stallman

>As you know, underage (another fabricated frontier between childhood and adulthood)

correct, this is a "legal" and not a biological/scientific term.

it means you are "under the age" that is required by law to partake in certain "adult" activities eg smoke, drink, sex (with other adults only), etc

>means you do not have a sexual activity, even less a sexual life.

incorrect, see below.

>But puberty hits long before you reach 18 or 21.

correct. furthermore, puberty is not necesarily the first time you think of or want sex / masturbate.

this will happen at the latest during puberty (provided the one in question is not asexual)

NOT making a case for anthropedo here, but infants do "masturbate" too

>I think I missed an important detail about the context of my youth... divorce... no father... my mother finally found a female mate (lesbian)...

this may have "nurtured" your pre existing "nature" of your (probably) inherited sexual orintation. especially if your mother was

"deviating" from the "norm" too. i don't have (as of now) enough data to make one claim or the other.

but zoophilia / zoosexuality appears to be a sexual orientation that is inherited and not a fetish which is accquired.

so you appear to just have had the proper conditions as a young zoo to start early. there are zoos who didn't find a mate until well into their thirties (or even later).

>I watched her do when I was young and found this really powerful and fascinating.

not surprised. zoophilia is deeply rooted and is usually expressed from a very early on point in development.

in a bunch of cases zoophilia manifested itself first as zoomania (the fascination with and love for animals).

zoosexuality comes out much later.

at the latest during puberty. which can be quite the surprise if you have been brought of with the stereotypical dogma and know you should want

your knight in shining armor, yet you would rather dump him and take the horse.

>The young foals were somewhat panicked, trotting around during the procedure, chewing air.

>My mother requested me to help and play a bit with the foals to lessen their stress while the stud and dam were fornicating

where the foals panicking during your doctor games as well? or just while their parents where mating?

and why? why were they so close as to panick in the first place? did you have a really small ranch? please explain.

>When she asked me to "play", it was actually her who requested me to "play doctor", touching them nicely and sensually here and there, teaching me things

i'd need more details. she told you to grope the fillies, and showed you how to properly fondle/masturbate them?

is there a particular (breeders) reason to do that? is stroking the vulva more "calming" to a panicked filly than stroking elsewhere?

or did she just want you to have a good time / was teaching you how to be zoo?

did your "lessons" look something like "trim yur nails and wash your hands before you finger a mare". or "this is a 'jtrhnbr'",

"never go from anal to vaginal", etc? please elaborate on your "lessons".

>I was around 8 and already knew the almost whole stuff about sexuality between horses, but nothing between humans as this remained quite a taboo

are you saying your mother was totally open about you doing foals and teaching you about "horse on horse" breeding and "human on horse" bestiality?

yet "human on human" sex remained a taboo? did i understand that right?

>it was my mother that "bred" me to a lovely young filly in a marriage-like ceremony

are you willing to share some more detail on that? this is rather fascinating.

>it was somehow supervised and even encouraged

define supervised. did your mother express voyeuristic tendencies? or did she just make sure you wont get a hoove to the face?

>The audience during the ceremony was restricted to a few knowing and zoo people, there was no shame, no harm, just love and pure bliss.

did this audence watch you get married or get mated (or both)?

>without assistance

how far did this assistance go? was she holding your hand/penis along the way? elaborate?

>No wonders why I'm an exclusive zoo

maybe. then again, exclusivity might be a genetic trait as well. not enough data currently available.

>Hence, how would you classify this?

it depends. i need more data. like i asked someone in a previous post. it depends on the underlying aspects of the attraction.

are you still mating with fillies? or did you stop after you "grew up"?

are you / were you more turned on by fillies than by mares? do you do them when they happen to be around (when they are born as part of your profession),

or do you specifically breed fillies to be around you so you can mate them? etc.

>>6076

did your mother also let you mate with mares? or fillies only? was this a size concern from her part?

a full grown mare might just be too powerful for a ten-year-old...

>>6059

the fuck is this shit? the autism is strong with this one.

>>6092

Wow, so many questions :) Hope I could help giving some useful inputs

>shall i insert you as "anonymous" into the database or would you want a pseudonym to be used?

Well, you know each one's life is rather unique and I do not think my own experience could be used to serve a pattern defining zoosexuals and such activities. Even though we share a common conception of love for animals and interaction with them, we are all from various backgrounds and we even disagree on the definition of words describing us (see the reactions to your classification)

I don't think my particular input be of any worth for your study.

>his may have "nurtured" your pre existing "nature"

That's a rather interesting question that always pondered in my mind. I think there's a lot of things that are indeed acquired during your very youth due to cerebral plasticity. But some kind of pleasant experience during your early days, unlinked with sexuality, could later develop and help such associations. Be them sights or smells. Who knows.

Just think about "weird" fetishes for leather and boots. Being born naked (until further proofs) I'd like to know you we could have some "leather and boots genes" to "nurture" our pre existing "nature" [sic].

>in a bunch of cases zoophilia manifested itself first as zoomania

Probably more like a desensitization being used to watch horse bred. Hence returning to my assumption that could be indeed acquired instead to be inherited. Because I cannot suspect my mother (or father) having horse genes and passing them to me.

>>6093

>where the foals panicking during your doctor games as well? or just while their parents where mating?

Just during the horses mating. As I told you that's a rather raw and powerful fucking, horses snorting and whinnying, dam squirting and pissing, stud mounting and biting, both of them hardly noticing and caring for the foal walking around, trying to get protection from the mare.

From my perspective that's kinda a shock for the young foal that could transform into a trauma later in time, making the future mare reluctant to mate, hence requiring restraints. I bet my mother asked me to "stroke" the fillies down there to show them it could be pleasant. BTW she was doing it herself to the foals, males and females.

It was a rather small ranch with only a dozen of horses. It was happening in the mid 70's. While my memory now serves me wrong more and more, these are very vivid and crisp details. The sight, the smell, I've told you, that imprints your inner cortex to a point hardly few searcher have looked for, too happy to jump into the "inherited" bandwagon the LGBT community lead for so many years to excuse their preferences.

>she told you to grope the fillies, and showed you how to properly fondle/masturbate them?

Yes

>is there a particular (breeders) reason to do that? is stroking the vulva more "calming" to a panicked filly than stroking elsewhere?

It had never been a clear issue, I assumed it was to lessen the trauma and prepare the filly for her brood mare future. My mother never explained this to me this way. However regarding how the fillies later behaved once grown, comparing with horses from other ranches, that was really effective.

Just remember in the "old times" kids in school were restrained during sleep time (dormitory) to avoid them rubbing or touching themselves. As you said, sexual discovery and needs comes even long before sexual puberty is reached.

>or did she just want you to have a good time / was teaching you how to be zoo?

Was she having a good time? Dunno, you cannot see a hardon on a woman. Was she teaching me to be a zoo? From what I remind from these sessions, it was more making me a good a devoted horse breeder than a pervert. Anyhow, it's hard to guess what she had in mind at these moments. I never asked her before she passed out. Missed an opportunity I guess...

>please elaborate on your "lessons"

Sex ed to become a serious breeder without making much distinction between humans and horses. It was like it was perfectly natural to do this.

>are you saying your mother was totally open about you doing foals and teaching you about "horse on horse" breeding and "human on horse" bestiality?

Yes, just like I said. Not much distinction between us. But during these times horses were still rather important for farmers and ranchers.

>>6093

>yet "human on human" sex remained a taboo? did i understand that right?

Yeah, that may sounds rather silly nowadays, but a boy and a guy together, before marriage, was still unseen. Don't forget my school still separated boys from girls. Perhaps my mother also suffered from her divorce, the countryside was a harsh life and she had to face raising me alone, having a young girl "assistant" helping with the chores.

>are you willing to share some more detail on that?

Well, I was very in "love" as a young boy can be with a young filly of around one month old, without much understanding of my feelings, nothing sexual oriented. The week before I painted my sheets for the first time, I remember that delighted her with no end despite me being worried for having "pissed" again in the bed after so long.

Well, to make the story short, the managed to prepare a little breeding session one night, yet I was the naked stud and my favorite filly was the dam. I shivered because I knew what was going to happen, and everything I was taught finally made sense to me. I was ready.

>define supervised. did your mother express voyeuristic tendencies?

Hard to know, but she sure was wearing a smile and french kissed my 'aunty' front of me while she remained rather secretive about her relationship, even to me.

>or did she just make sure you wont get a hoove to the face?

Of course my safety was her concern. But she really acted like a breeder with us, asking me to tease the filly or the mare before proceeding to the actual intercourse.

>did this audence watch you get married or get mated (or both)?

Only during the "marriage". The other breeding sessions were more private. I never understood what the ceremony stood for. Having reached "adulthood" by being now sexually active, or just to bind me with my young love, despite her being a filly? Or force me into zoosexuality? No clear and definitive answer on that...

>how far did this assistance go? was she holding your hand/penis along the way? elaborate?

Mostly calming the fillies, scratching some know spots, holding the foals still until I popped their cherry (some were rather tight) and most importantly, preventing the aroused mares from backing on me, making me fall from the stool and stomping me meanwhile.

Being a boy, I was able to line my penis by myself, unlike a stud. Hence she was just ensuring everything went well when the filly or mare were clearly overpowering me.

>maybe. then again, exclusivity might be a genetic trait as well. not enough data currently available.

Really not sure about that one.

>>6095

>are you still mating with fillies? or did you stop after you "grew up"?

Still mating them, but not until they are at least one month old. My penis grew quite larger since my youth, it might sure fit but I'm not going to take the risk of hurting them. Never stopped since then.

>are you / were you more turned on by fillies than by mares?

Fillies are more fun and into "playing doctor", I could teach patience and standing still. Sexually mature mares are more round, smells stronger and we know we needs each other to relief us from sexual urges. And they have an incredible stamina and features no woman will ever have.

>do you do them when they happen to be around (when they are born as part of your profession)

I follow what my mother taught to be, and breeding them young is part of the raising procedure.

>or do you specifically breed fillies to be around you so you can mate them?

You can teach other fillies, they are willing participants to everything to feels good to them. Sexuality is nowhere a taboo to them. When I have sexual intercourse with them, it's mostly about socialization, not breeding in the impregnating sense of it. Just like the bonobo apes do. It's fun and mutual enjoyable, so why not?

>etc.

If you have specific inquiries... Please keep in mind I'm giving you these informations not for voyeurism value, but to provide you with firsthand clues of a special case of horsemanship. I really do care about my horses, I have a strong moral value, but do not share the common hypocrisy about sexuality and human animal intercourse.

My my my, waking up was hard today, now the horses are fed and me too I see I mistyped some things, sorry.

>>6093

>or did she just want you to have a good time / was teaching you how to be zoo?

...From what I remind from these sessions, it was more making me a good [a]->[and] devoted horse breeder than a pervert...

>are you saying your mother was totally open about you doing foals and teaching you about "horse on horse" breeding and "human on horse" bestiality?

Yes, just like I said. Not much distinction between us. But during these times horses were still rather important for farmers and ranchers. +[Understand we really cared for our horses that were more like family members than pets or tools. The loss of a horse was not just an animal dying, it was a 20 or 30yo companion we shared life and work with. And sexuality.]

>yet "human on human" sex remained a taboo? did i understand that right?

...but a boy and a [guy]->[girl] together, before marriage...

>are you willing to share some more detail on that?

+[It remains the best moment of my life so far, even though I then had thousands more other good "moments" and "sessions" during the following decades. But you know, your first time remains a particular cherished souvenir in your heart.]

>define supervised. did your mother express voyeuristic tendencies?

+[Never had this "mouth-to-mouth" fetish, probably because I thought it was weird to share saliva and found it rather disgusting, while in the meantime I had no problem licking weak smelling fillies and strong tasting mares. It was my breeding duty habit my mother had put me into, just like role playing, and I grew somehow addicted to it. But human on human rather repulsed me so I not thought about sexual arousal and voyeurism in the first place, even later. She just looked really happy as I was performing well like she expected.]

>>6095

>are you still mating with fillies? or did you stop after you "grew up"?

+[I may also mention that I have set sex ed "classes" for fillies starting in the late spring. I pack a few foals together for an hour, "playing doctor" with them, allowing the mares to be quiet for a while. When the most enterprising filly turns her ass to me, I gently fuck her front of the other fillies. Soon another trained filly would turns herself and raise her tail in anticipation, allowing me to switch. I kind of hierarchy easily sets by itself and even the virgin foals finally mimic the most experienced ones, allowing me to take their virginity. When the class is over I let them join back their dam and it is touching to see them hurry nursing on the mares' teats with a little trail of my cum dripping from their sleek equine vulva. They will soon be grown mares and bear new generation of foals.]

>do you do them when they happen to be around (when they are born as part of your profession)

I follow what my mother taught to [be]->[me], and breeding them young is part of the raising procedure.

>or do you specifically breed fillies to be around you so you can mate them?

You can teach other +[people's] fillies, ...

Sorry about the misinterpretations these typing mistakes or lack of details may have generated.

Holy shit, as shitty as this thread was from the start, stop hijacking threads with your garbage. If you want to make a survey start your own thread.

It saddens me that those of us with interests in foals but without access to foals never get to see anything with foals. There's a lot of misunderstanding and suppression when it comes to foals as young as you mentioned. Even the mere mention of it will get you banned from more mainstream sites :(

>>6102

>Hope I could help giving some useful inputs

thank you for being open enough to answer my questions. this is indeed helpful input.

>we even disagree on the definition of words describing us (see the reactions to your classification)

sure, thats ok. whether people are or aren't accepting the string of letters that i (or anyone else for that matter) use to describe a sub-phenomenon,

is irrelevant to the fact that these individual aspects of zoophilia exist (and need to be named to be properly studied).

and they need to be properly studied to give society/scientists clarity on the subject and remove predjudices and false information.

which would directly benefit the "zoo movement". whatever that even is.

>acquired during your very youth

it appears that some people are genuinely "born that way" (sexual orientation), yet others clearly exhibit signs that its accquired (fetish?).

>Just think about "weird" fetishes for leather and boots. Being born naked (until further proofs)

>I'd like to know you we could have some "leather and boots genes" to "nurture" our pre existing "nature" [sic].

thats because these are fetishes which are accquired. and not a sexual orientation which is genetic & epigenetic.

>I cannot suspect my mother (or father) having horse genes and passing them to me.

if by "horse" genes, you mean "zoo" genes, then they are (most likely) inherited. recent studies have shown a very complex working together of

various genes, epigenes and chromosomal bands. some of which are recessive alleles. so even if you parents did not "express" zoo genes, they could

still have passed them onto you. besides, your mother sounds like she was expressing at least some forms of zoo.

did she ever have sex with the horses as well?

>too happy to jump into the "inherited" bandwagon

its pretty much proven that sexual orientation is passed on (epi)genetically. so a sexual orientation is inherited.

this LGBT argument is more focusing on the fact that they did not "choose" to be gay, and can't "change" what they are attracted to.

so whether or not it is genetically "inherited" (is inherited and is definitely expressed),

epigenetically "activated" (is inherited and will (if conditions are right) get expressed/activated), or

fetishistically "imprinted" (an experience causes you to change), is not relevent to the fact that differences in brain structures is observed

between various different sexual orientations/preferences/attractions and means that it cant be "changed". only oppressed.

>what she had in mind at these moments

well, it is certainly not usual for a mother to go and say: "hey son, can you go fuck that filly for me real quick?".

even from a valid breeder perspective (to prepare them), you would not actually have to "get off", and could used just your hands / tools.

>it was perfectly natural to do this

zoosexuality is a perfectly natural thing that regularly occurs in nature. but for society it isnt natural, do to "dogmatic morals".

your mom certainly was different. my condolences to your loss.

>I shivered because I knew what was going to happen

have you masturbated before this event took place? or was this literally your "first time" to experience an orgasm? (aside from the "wet dream(s)" you described)

> I never understood what the ceremony stood for

have you never talked with your mother about this? have you talked about "zoophilia", its philosophy, zoonosis, etc? or only about the mating stuff?

did she for example tell you to not tell any of your friends/schoolmates about this? did she warn you about public perception? especially since you thought this to

be "perfectly natural", you might have been inclined to tell your friends that you have a new (filly) girlfriend.

>Understand we really cared for our horses that were more like family members than pets or tools. The loss of a horse was not just an animal dying,

>it was a 20 or 30yo companion we shared life and work with. And sexuality

from what you have told us it really looks that way. besides, the people who are the best at their profession are usually the ones who really "love" what they do.

>Hence, how would you classify this?

someone masturbating a dog to obtain semen for artificial insamination is not (necessarily) a zoo.

so if you mate with your fillies as some form of process that your mother taught you, then this would just be part of the "job".

if you actually are sexually attracted, and do this not just as a breeding proccess, but also to have a sexual experience for your own personal gain,

then you would fall into the zoo and pedozoo category. again, pedozoo (especially in the case of horses) isn't to be regarded on the same level as anthropedosexuality.

>>6176

>If you have specific inquiries...

if you wouldn't mind telling us (i know even i would not answer some of those questions):

how do you personally cope with the death of a lover.

how do you feel about "selling" your horses. especially if you have been intimate with them? does this cause you to be conflicted?

don't mean to be offensive so dont take this the wrong way, but are you autistic? or have been "diagnosed" with some other mental condition?

are you all "alone" or do other humans live with you at your ranch??

out of curiosity, do you agree with my classification? would you have a problem being labled a pedozoo (since you actually do fillies)?

what is your rough location / country of residence? (this helps with demographic data)

what are your religious and political views?

>Please keep in mind I'm giving you these informations not for voyeurism value, but to provide you with firsthand clues of a special case of horsemanship.

>I really do care about my horses, I have a strong moral value, but do not share the common hypocrisy about sexuality and human animal intercourse.

yes, i thought so. you have indeed provided valuable data.

since you speak of moral values, do you have a specific philosophical viewpoint? or do you just "live" without worrying about "that stuff".

>>6155

>There's a lot of misunderstanding and suppression when it comes to foals as young as you mentioned. Even the mere mention of it will get you banned from more mainstream sites

that's because mainstream normies and many mainstream zoos regard zoopedo on the same level as anthropedo.

>>6099

>the fuck is this shit? the autism is strong with this one.

this shit is sematics and science. that does not mean that the poster is autistic (it also doesn't mean he/she isn't either. but to assume so is fallacious).

>>6121

>Holy shit, as shitty as this thread was from the start,

the concept of the thread was never shitty. only (some) of the people replying to it were. also, this isnt garbage. it is/was a discussion about

zoo related issues that will ultimately "make or break" the 'movement'. and if you are not interested in the "movement" (one way or the other), then what are you doing here?

(not sure if the zoo rights movement is a good thing anyways)

>stop hijacking threads

this is very relevant to the topic, so it they weren't really hijacking the thread.

>with your garbage

just because it isnt about pron you can fap to, or because you don't like the oppinions expressed / facts layed out doesn't make this garbage.

>If you want to make a survey start your own thread.

it was not possible to anticipate that so much content would be posted here about definitions and/or moral aspects of zoo (and therfore the "movement").

and its pointless to start a new thread just to reply to a question from the original thread.

although, it might make sense that in addition to the movement thread they also start a zoo philosophy thread, where they can discuss

morals and other philisophical aspect to the phenomenon. this way the people who feel inclined to discuss this, wont "derail" (hijack as you call it) the thread.

>>6176

>they need to be properly studied to give society/scientists clarity on the subject and remove predjudices and false information.

I do not think people needs to know much about zoos. No matter what, as much scientifically cross checked information will be available, zoos still will be ridiculed. See how creationists' beliefs progress even though a probe flight by pluto. Mankind's stupidity and blindness never ceases to amaze me.

>it appears that some people are genuinely "born that way" (sexual orientation)

I cannot tell what was my sexuality since I was raised in a kinda particular environment. How to tell what was "inherited" and what "acquired"?

>some of which are recessive alleles. so even if you parents did not "express" zoo genes, they could still have passed them onto you

That sounds rather weird according to Darwin's theories. Zoos and gays are hence less likely to reproduce to transmit their genes, so they might have disappeared since ages ago. But it looks like there are more and more zoos and gays out there. It that caused my a chemical mutation or some other ways?

>did she ever have sex with the horses as well?

To my knowledge, no. Just what I've told you, masturbating fillies and colts, breeding grown horses. I wasn't into peeping what she was doing, we all had our intimacy.

>is not relevent to the fact that differences in brain structures is observed between various different sexual orientations/preferences/attractions and means that it cant be "changed". only oppressed.

It is known that oppression and violence are weapons of the weak.

>well, it is certainly not usual for a mother to go and say: "hey son, can you go fuck that filly for me real quick?"

It depends of your surrounding, I guess. Was it normal for nazis to treat jews the way they did. Were they born that way, with anger and hate for a specific cast of people? I don't know much about my mother's past that could have explained her behaviors.

>you would not actually have to "get off", and could used just your hands / tools.

Perhaps it was the most convenient way to teach the foals the "real" stuff without tricking them with fingers. I was the only boy around and had to do my own part of the tasks helping raising horses, shoveling manure and stuff. Beside doing my homework.

>but for society it isn't natural, do to "dogmatic morals". your mom certainly was different.

Remember Crocodile Dundee 3, when he goes into a large city? Things that are taken for granted into one environment isn't necessarily into another. Life in the countryside is hard and requires different skills than living in the city. To me all looked rather pretty normal. It was my everyday life.

>my condolences to your loss.

Thanks.

>have you masturbated before this event took place?

I do not remember well, not that my mind is fuzzy but I cannot distinguish if there was a before I started masturbating. Well, I cannot remember when, at what age. I sure might have touched myself, like waking up in the morning with an oversensitive morning wood even though you are a young boy. Touching your penis is like an electroshock. Of course you explore these new sensations one way or another.

>or was this literally your "first time" to experience an orgasm?

It is something to watch horse breeding, the stud pumping his seed deep into the dam. It is completely different to be now at the place of the stud and experience everything first hand. Being behind and above the female, the jitter when sliding your penis into a soft and hot vulva, grabbing the velvet hips, pumping inside until to feel your brain, your heart, your lungs and your prostate exploding, your eyes popping out of their orbits when you finally ejaculate into your lover. No wonders why stallions go nuts near a mare.

>have you never talked with your mother about this?

There was no real reasons to do so, I had full confidence into my mothers. I was raised alone, no brother, no sister, almost no family we encountered only once a year for xmas. During those times, I was not the most popular boy other kids would talk to, and there were no reasons to bring these topics up.

>>6176

>did she for example tell you to not tell any of your friends/schoolmates about this?

Not really, my scholarship have been rather... erratic, to say the least. And boys and girls my area were used too with raising horses or cattle and knew about breeding. And the other boys also played with animals too, so again I had no real reasons to feel any different and talk about my mother mating me to fillies and mares.

>you might have been inclined to tell your friends that you have a new (filly) girlfriend.

We all had our preferred animal at our respective farms. At this time I never thought it would be any different for them than for me. I thought they were too "helping" their parents by "playing doctor" with the young animals and "breeding" the mature ones. When someone said he helped "bred" the cows, I imagined he actually did them while he was speaking leading the bull to them with pride. It was just a continual misunderstanding that somewhat saved me. Somehow. Because during the "ceremony" there were a couple of kids my age witnessing so I really thought we all shared the same life.

>the people who are the best at their profession are usually the ones who really "love" what they do.

Excellence requires a lifetime dedication.

>how do you personally cope with the death of a lover.

Just as badly as when my mother passed out. Miserable for almost a month. Thanks they don't die too often.

>how do you feel about "selling" your horses. especially if you have been intimate with them? does this cause you to be conflicted?

Mixed feelings. Being intimate with them is part of the way I do my job, you feel more protective of your herd, but some fillies and mares means more to you. Selling some of them is part of the job, I'm not Noah, my ranch ain't an arch, I have to live from my work. And selling my horses to good people is less a burden to my heart. The greatest benefit is that I don't see them die. I just get yearly snapshots for eve. Sometime a bad news that makes me tear but I pass on.

>but are you autistic? or have been "diagnosed" with some other mental condition?

Never heard of something specific about my mental condition, remember I'm a country man in his late 40s, I don't think people care much about me regarding my "issues". I do my job for years now and it's enough for everybody not to ask me stupid questions. That's all what matters to me.

>are you all "alone" or do other humans live with you at your ranch??

I'm living alone, beside my horses and my dogs. Some poultry that lays eggs, a guy from the village that give a hand from time to time, not much interactions though. I've heard people talking about me and probably doing my horses. Looks like it isn't looking as common as it used to be anymore. So I try to remain quiet about it not to raise suspicion about my private activities.

>do you agree with my classification? would you have a problem being labled a pedozoo (since you actually do fillies)?

I do not care much about classifications, that's mostly a mind-game to me, people having the need to sort things to understand or make things understandable. Whatever motives you to do so, it is yet factual that I do fillies, hence your classification sounds correct. But the world still spins, so I guess there's nothing sort of a revolution out there. Until proven wrong by the next guy not agreeing with your wording. In the meanwhile I raise and fuck horses, each one his occupations.

>what is your rough location / country of residence? (this helps with demographic data)

A first world country.

>what are your religious and political views?

Religion, evangelist. Politicrap.

>or do you just "live" without worrying about "that stuff".

This, I live the way my mother taught me to. Work hard, earn what I deserve, I stopped believing in a merciful God when I lost half of my horses into a barn fire. I know that I already reach half of my lifespan and my health is slowly going downhill and I can hardly change anything about it. I just try to live the best life I can and understood that mine, despite its roughness, looks to be rather unique in its kind. I cherish that and finally I'm happy about it. There were very rude moments, but dude, I have such a "filling" life.

>>5294

regarding pic 1440810678967-1.jpg

it is called bestiality NOT beastility. is OP a noob or a troll?

how is this "lone wolf" picture dump related to any of this?

IMAGE SPAMMING DETECTED!

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

failfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfailfail

wtf, flooding? are you serious?

not sure if child (script kiddie) or just trolling.

>>6295

yeah, at least the pics are cute.

not movement relatet though.

flood

detection

fail.

fix

this

admin/BO

PLEASE!

!

will

you

please

stop

behaving

like

a

child?

thank you!

fine

be

that

way.

fill

up

our

thread

.

we

can

always

start

a

new

one

!

>>6345

That's actually a pretty nice shot

>>6348

mfw I detected the nigga in this pic

can you atleast zip those images?

as shitty as the flood was, many pics are nice.

and i dont wanna manually download them all.

>>6361

didn't even see that until you pointed it out, lol

>>6361

wow, good eye

Now dripping

Thank you for posting the foal pictures. How old was she when her virginity was taken here?

>>6428

Hard to tell, from her tail hair's length, looks like she is more around 1yo so not a foal anymore, but she still wear pussy hair so not a grown filly either. Mostly looking as a quite young shetland pony filly.

Good job done there and obvious mare swapping between two horny guys regarding the numbers of hands spreading the tiny vulva open (first picture) plus the cum color and consistency (the three next pictures, clear and liquid, the last picture thick and opaque).

The next two older filly pictures are gorgeous. Thanks poster. She looks like a 1mo filly. Superb picture of human semen dripping out of a horse cunt.

>>6440

Do you have any you know for sure is a foal? I would have guessed the second one was older than the first. Do 1 month old foals wink?

>>6446

>Do you have any you know for sure is a foal?

Sorry?

>I would have guessed the second one was older than the first.

So do I, but a foal's tail is more fluffy than the one displayed.

>Do 1 month old foals wink?

Of course they do, from day one because it's a feature they need to squeeze their piss out to get clean. They don't always have a willing human tongue to wipe their lovely equine vulva with.

Look for the file named 'filly_wink1.avi' because I cannot post it there, even in webm format, I keep getting timeout or 'entity too large' errors (for a 2MB file)

anyone got any good tips for fence hopping?

I'm attracted to mares but I have no way of owning one at the moment, but I really wanna meet one to do stuff with.

I know about the whole fact that I need to bond with her first. I'll get to know her before I do anything

>>6457

You could be killed legally I don't recommend it

>>5294

I wasn't aware there was any problem with zoosexuality to begin with.

I really want to get ahold of the filly wink video you posted screens from. It's one of Equibur's videos I don't have. I do wonder where to find his videos these days.

>>6454

just throw it up on mega or some other file site

I wish people could just be able to separate "this thing shouldn't be considered wrong" and "this thing should be considered normal"

Whenever you see someone saying one thing, they're always saying the other

Likewise when you see one person disagreeing with a person claiming one thing, they're always assuming that person is also claiming the other thing

Why does there have to be some logical/moral/religious reason behind something not being normal?

Why can't people just say "I think it's icky and I don't want to see it" and leave it at that?

>>6484

Things are black and white to some people

>>6205

wtf is going on in that pic? that shit looks brutal.

what is the pole being used for? is that tiger even still alive?

>>6182

>>6183

>I do not think people needs to know much about zoos

perhaps, perhaps not. people might not "need" to know much about zoophilia, but zoos certainly do.

>I cannot tell what was my sexuality since I was raised in a kinda particular environment. How to tell what was "inherited" and what "acquired"?

too complicated to explain here in just a few sentences. but essentially through psychological/neurological or genetical analysis.

at the end of the day, it does not really matter why you love horses. it only matters that you do.

>That sounds rather weird according to Darwin's theories.

>Zoos and gays are hence less likely to reproduce to transmit their genes, so they might have disappeared since ages ago.

its called "darwin's paradox", because the answer(s) are not as intuitive as the rest of "evolution".

its also a bit too complicated to explain in just a few sentences here. i can try though in a future post, but only if anyone actually wants me to.

>But it looks like there are more and more zoos and gays out there.

just because it "looks" like there are more zoos/gays out there does not mean that this is the case. people back then could not be as open about being

gay as they can be now. so the majority remained "closeted" their entire life. now that homosexuality is legal in many places, people simply "come out" more often.

we still have no idea how many zoos (or gays for that matter) there are on earth, but the percentage of zoo/gay/etc is (probably) still the same as always.

>It that caused my a chemical mutation or some other ways?

if and only if zoo/homo sexualty is in fact increasing (which is probably isnt), then this could have numerous reasons. radiation, toxins, overpopulation, etc.

so either a genetic mutation, or more people become zoo/gay "fetishists", since its becoming more mainstream.

>Was it normal for nazis to treat jews the way they did. Were they born that way, with anger and hate for a specific cast of people?

no. the is no "jew hate" gene. sexism, racism, specis, etc is learned / imprinted by social mores / religious dogmata / a few individuals (eg hitler) provoking and

rallying the sheeple to follow.

>To me all looked rather pretty normal. It was my everyday life.

well yeah, thats how you were "raised". thats how child development works.

>I thought they were too "helping" their parents by "playing doctor"

>It was just a continual misunderstanding that somewhat saved me

at what point did you realize that this wasn't as normal as you had though, and that it would be best to prevent anyone from finding out about it?

>Mixed feelings

wow, thats deep.

>beside my horses and my dogs

are (some of) your dogs also your partners? or are you a horses only guy?

>Until proven wrong by the next guy not agreeing with your wording

disagreeing with the claimant does not disprove the claim.

>but dude, I have such a "filling" life.

lol